Archaeology and the Bible51

Rating:

Topic: Archaeology and the Bible (Read 10097 times)

If 'jumbledjohnnie' actually manages to attempt to produce ANY evidence whatsoever as sources, I would register extreme surprise

Wishful thinking. It's an impossible concept given his debating disabilities he proudly shines at debaters. However since the book he so proudly and 'offensively' defends commands him to kindly explain his beliefs, let's see if he can live up to his religion's standards by answering my simple questions. Of course I predict cowardly behavior blossoming and he'll say something like I'm not interpreting the bible the way he does, and therefore he won't have to debate.

Typical arrogance. The first several posts of this thread alone should be enough to silence critics.

*sigh* As usual, you seem to favor spite rather than knowledge. Care to clarify what hasn't been addressed? Care to add to the debate+discussion or are you just going to cower away like the poor example of a christian you tend to be? Perhaps you should read your bible more. 1 Peter 3:15 . Now, kindly answer my question please...or back away while you incorrectly label people. We'll all know how strong you are in your beliefs then.

As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence.

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you!

If 'jumbledjohnnie' actually manages to attempt to produce ANY evidence whatsoever as sources, I would register extreme surprise

Wishful thinking. It's an impossible concept given his debating disabilities he proudly shines at debaters. However since the book he so proudly and 'offensively' defends commands him to kindly explain his beliefs, let's see if he can live up to his religion's standards by answering my simple questions. Of course I predict cowardly behavior blossoming and he'll say something like I'm not interpreting the bible the way he does, and therefore he won't have to debate.

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

The first Seven posts are all presentations of the subject under debate by the OP. These do Not include any opposing viewpoints or challenges to the presented material, (those began at the 8th post - where "jumbledjohnnie" apparently stopped having someone else read them to him).

You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence.

Those aren't "facts" and you abuse the term in your oblivious misusage of it. Neither do unsubstantiated religious superstitions constitute "cold hard evidence". Thank you, however, for offering 'cold, hard evidence' in the form of your posts which clearly shows that your ignorance has an unbreachable underLYING layer of unabashed stupidity so simple and yet, sublime in nature as to be almost unnatural.

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

"Apparently these passages have been disputed since the sevententh century. The theory is that either these portions were interpolated into the text of Josephus by Christian copyists at some later date.(But before Eusibius) or both Josephus and Eusebius texts were tampered with." Josephus turned out to be a 1st century romano-jewish historian, (the inherent bias of "jewish" isn't being overlooked by others). None of those writings in dispute do more than repeat unsupported biblical claims. Calling them "extra-biblical" merely because such mimicking isn't a 'biblical chapter & verse' is extremely disingenious. Lastly, there isn't any "aformentioned archeololgical evidence" which "supports the bible"; there are only claims without evidence and 'faith', (also being inherently a lack of evidence), presented.

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?

What do you mean, "virtually unaltered? Although you might be as completely unaware of the Dead Sea scrolls, the Council of Nicea's 'editing' or, certain "biblical-agnostic" texts, others are not. Not only has the "bible" gone through many revisions, translations of other translations, extensive editing to such a degree that one must inquire 'which bible?' when others blithly reference the several versions available, (or had been available in the past). These are documented facts which oppose your false claim of "facts" which would support your contention were they not completely false.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.

Good call, "Falconer02". It may have been predictible however, at least "jumbledjohnnie" was true to form in his dissembling response. Even when he tried to present non-facts as "facts", he still failed to debate the contentions.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.

Quote

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?

Quote

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.

Quote

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require pointless or untruthful attacks, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote

I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HellGehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection

Please do not try to stray from the current subject though as I will do the same and try to not bring up your humorous argument about Jonah and the whale from earlier.

As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.

Quote

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?

Quote

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.

Quote

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require ad hom fallacies, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote

I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HellGehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection

I wouldn't exactly use wikipedia as a "trusted source" for one thing.lol.And for the record,I stuck around that debate for quite a few replies.Long after you dropped that subject and long enough to see you play the same tired "debate games" that you're doing now.

Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

I for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.

[quote from "Jumbledjohnnie"]As I said,The first several posts speak for themselves.You may not like it,but the fact remains that Judeo-Christianity didn't survive for thousends of years by superstitious primitives.The facts are cold hard evidence[/quote]

I'll state that it survives today with superstitious people who can use computers. But my question remains- sources plz.

Apparently, he's expressing the implicit belief that, just because a religious superstition survived, (albeit, after undergoing several changes and sectarian schisms along the way), that such 'survival' somehow constitutes evidence of validity. That does not logically-follow, however.

Quote

Jesus of Nazarath lived,died and the empty tomb was found.All this is fact supported by several historical writings by Josephus and Eusebius among others,and the aformentioned archeololgical evidence supports the Bible as to the existence of Pilate,caiaphas,and so on.

Please answer my question- any credible sources for this? Non-xtian ones just to show an unbiased approach and an avoidance to circular-reasoning?

*crickets loudly chirping*

Quote

Considering that the Bible's manuscript evidence is stronger than that of Homer,Plato and Aristotle and it has been virtually unaltered since the original writing,I continue to wonder to what end will you ignore the facts?Do you believe Columbus "discovered" America? Hearsay! Hearsay,I tell you

The bible has been altered countless times both accidentally and deliberately. Saying otherwise would show a complete lack of education on the subject.What facts have you presented? Please answer my question.

Quote

There's not much point in debating,when you clearly show a lack of respect toward Believers,as has been shown several times in the past.I chose to respond this time.I'm sure it will give you much fodder to pick apart line-by-line as is the custom around here.

Lack of respect would require pointless or untruthful attacks, which is what we're constantly calling you on because they're quite humorous since you wish to stray from the debate due to your lack of elementary argumentative skills. Or did I just disrespect you by pointing out the obvious?

Quote

I have to admit,you've come a long way since our first "debate",when you invented some non-sense about the early Christian's creating the term "Hell" for a "Mass Grave". lol.

You mean that debate in which you ran away from? That was where some of the terminology for it came from.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HellGehenna refers to the "Valley of Hinnon", which was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem. It was a place where people burned their garbage and thus there was always a fire burning there. Bodies of those deemed to have died in sin without hope of salvation (such as people who committed suicide) were thrown there to be destroyed.[26] Gehenna is used in the New Testament as a metaphor for the final place of punishment for the wicked after the resurrection

Please do not try to stray from the current subject though.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.

"The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are a collection of 972 texts from the Hebrew Bible and extra-biblical documents found between 1947 and 1956 on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls are traditionally divided into three groups: "Biblical" manuscripts (copies of texts from the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 40% of the identified scrolls; "Apocryphal" or "Pseudepigraphical" manuscripts (known documents from the Second Temple Period like Enoch, Jubilees, Tobit, Sirach, additional psalms, etc., that were not ultimately canonized in the Hebrew Bible), which comprise roughly 30% of the identified scrolls; and "Sectarian" manuscripts (previously unknown documents that speak to the rules and beliefs of a particular group or groups." These scrolls are not exact copies of "bibles" currently extant, (re: 40%), and therefore extant bibles reflect omissions, alterations, errors & variations resulting from mistranslations.

I for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.

If you do not have the time nor inclination to defend the specious pronouncements you have a prepondering tendency to make so often, why make them? If you're just going to 'hit-and-run', you're a coward lacking the courage of your own supersititious convictions. Claiming to not have the time for debate while nonetheless poking in to fire-off non sequiturs before dashing off to hide IS running away, no matter what the excuse. Hey, no one is forcing you to do so therefore, your excuses ring more hollowly than your skull must when lightly-tapped.

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!

Your diversionary tactic fails. It's still apparent that you 'ran away' from debating the subject matter emphasized by "Falconer02".

As an aside, (and then back on track); the 'discovery' of america is a misnomer. Other folks 'discovered' it long before Columbus first assumed he'd landed in India, (which is why the inhabitants of america at that time came to be mislabeled as "indians").

Now, why don't the Dead Sea scrolls and current 'bibles', (or even the toran), match exactly? Could it be due to those alterations you've claimed don't exist or, are the Scrolls not considered to be "cold, hard evidence" somehow?

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

I am very happy to explain passages in the Bible for folks who have questions.Unfortunatly,one rarely gets the chance to talk theology here.It always comes back to "prove it to me/what's the source" and other time wasting topics.

I am very happy to explain passages in the Bible ... and other time wasting topics.

This is the "debate+discuss" forum, not the 'bible-thumping' forum, (which doesn't exist as a catagory and gets heaped upon the pile of "off topic" subjects unless the 'thumper is spamming the other forums).

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.

I wouldn't exactly use wikipedia as a "trusted source" for one thing.lol.And for the record,I stuck around that debate for quite a few replies.Long after you dropped that subject and long enough to see you play the same tired "debate games" that you're doing now.

I can agree with you on wikipedia not always being a solid source, though pertaining to what I quoted- it's quite common for historians to know this fact. Your argument here amounts to "Apples are usually red or green, but since wikipedia says this, it's probably not true."

Quote

Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

You're failing very badly here-- those sources were heavily refuted and anyone who actually read the thread would know this. To save you some time, those sources were dressed up to look legitimate (by the OP), but were actually just as credible as your Yacht-club myth link about the whale eating a man. If you could, please refute this with some credible knowledge of the subjects discussed. Actually I know you won't do this, so please stop backtracking and answer my original questions.

Quote

The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The major difference here (as is presented throughout the thread) is bias. People searching for answers without a preconceived want is what real archaeology is. As you said, you were in this thread for quite some time. We've already proven the xtian arch's are being completely biased in their findings. However, if you are not to take something as legitimate as the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth (something I fortunately have seen up close), I suggest you kindly keep your bronze-aged mythology to yourself before you end up looking like a buffoon as you have here.

Quote

The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

Name an atheist here that refuses to back up their claims. Because I can name a xtian who refuses such simple requests...

Quote

So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!

Columbus did not discover America. That would be impossible unless he was the first human on the shore of this continent. Considering natives were already there 20,000+ years earlier and he (negatively) interacted with them, your question needs to carefully be restated. Columbus did exist though, as there are countless valid and credible sources to his existence. Unfortunately such characters as Jesus do not share such parallels. Also, my first questions still remain unanswered.

*crickets still chirping*

Quote

for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.

Okay...then...bye? Thanks for failing to answer my questions and show you can't follow your own belief system. It's always a pleasure! lol

Several sources have been provided by the OP.That was the point.You don't want to except them because of the same old "tainted source" fears.

You're failing very badly here-- those sources were heavily refuted and anyone who actually read the thread would know this. To save you some time, those sources were dressed up to look legitimate (by the OP), but were actually just as credible as your Yacht-club myth link about the whale eating a man. Also, please stop backtracking and answer my questions.

Quote

The Bible hasn't been significantly altered.I'm afraid I'll have to turn to you to provide proof for that claim.(and yes,I imagine I won't except it any more than you'd except my claims/sources.Ain't it always the way?)

The major difference here (as is presented throughout the thread) is bias. People searching for answers without a preconceived want is what real archaeology is. As you said, you were in this thread for quite some time. We've already proven the xtian arch's are being completely biased in their findings. However, if you are not to take something as legitimate as the Dead Sea Scrolls as truth (something I fortunately have seen up close), I suggest you kindly keep your bronze-aged mythology to yourself before you end up looking like a buffoon as you have here.

Quote

The fact remains that not everyone makes it their life's work to defend (or in your and Falcon's case attempt to destroy) the Faith.Those of us who don't have the resources at our fingertips to post (only in a futile attempt to get some of you hard headed skeptics to concede even the smallest claim) should not be mocked any more than the several atheists who post here with nothing to back themselves up.

Name an atheist here that refuses to back up their claims. Because I can name a xtian who refuses such simple requests...

Quote

So.....did Columbus discover America or not?We didn't SEEEEE him do it,did we?How can we trust what was written back in 1492?Some mad man came up with the whole story!Hearsay!Hearsay,I say!!!!

Columbus did not discover America. That would be impossible unless he were the first human on the shore of this continent. Considering natives were already there 20,000+ years earlier and he (negatively) interacted with them, your question needs to carefully be restated. Columbus did exist though, as there are countless valid and credible sources to his existence. Unfortunately such characters as Jesus do not share such parallels. Also, my first questions still remain unanswered.

*crickets still chirping*

Quote

for one,have "a life" and have no desire to spend a significant part of it in endless debates that can hardly be considered won or lost.If you want to consider anybody that leaves the topic before you say the discussion is over "running away",that's your problem.

Okay...then...bye? Thanks for failing to answer my questions and show you can't follow your own belief system. It's always a pleasure! lol

*standing ovation* {not to be confused with sitting ovulation since I'm a straight guy and am content to applaud your superb reply thusly}

« Last Edit: May 03, 2012, 12:51:22 am by falcon9 »

Logged

One can lead a horse to water however, if one holds the horse's head under, that horse will drown.